This has been discussed a bit before, but as I contemplate scanning some of my slide collection I have been thinking about this again.

In my film days (and I still use film alongside digital) each photograph cost money. At current prices that is about 25p per slide. As a result, I was quite careful about how many pictures I took and what of. For a month travelling in Europe (when I was a student) I used to splash out and buy 10 rolls of Kodachrome, i.e., 360 photographs. I felt I was being quite extravagant. I got to know the foibles of the ME Super light meter for the sort of subjects I photographed. For every box of slides I got back, I would have no more than one or two slides where the exposure was off or the focus wasn't right. The downside is that I wasn't very adventurous. The photographs are, in the main, competant record shots of buildings, monuments and landscapes ideal for lectures and slide shows of my trips, but not "beautiful" in an artistic sense, and few I'd want printed and framed.

Since getting a digital SLR I have changed. I still take those record type shots but I also spend much more time taking pictures of sunsets on the beach or snow-encrusted barbed wire and so forth. I now go out looking for photographs, rather than just taking my camera along with me on a trip. I find that often I will take quite a number of photographs of the same subject, varying the viewpoint slightly, changing the exposure a bit, trying different f-stops to change the depth of field, bracketing in case I want to try HDR and so on. On the other hand I have become sloppy in some aspects such as exposure. Often, especially if it is a static subject, I'll shoot, check the histogram and reshoot rather than carefully metering in the first instance. As a result, I have shot about 25,000 digital images in five years --- many of which I should delete --- compared to c. 10,000 slides in 28 years!

It seems to me, therefore, a case of swings and roundabouts. I am producing considerably more interesting photos since going digital (I'll leave you lot to judge the quality) and am much more experimental but technically I am definitely much more sloppy than I am with film. (I am even more careful with the view camera where every BW negative --- before processing and development --- is £1.10 and every colour slide is £2.70!). Digital has certainly re-ignited my interest. I had reached a level of competance with the sorts of photographs I was taking that I had stopped pushing the boundaries. Now, I'll try all sorts of things I wouldn't have even thought of before (partly as a result of the competitions on here).

I don't want to open up the can of worms about whether film or digital is better image-wise (a stale and boring debate), I am only really interested in how the change/addition of digital has impacted on how one approaches one's photographs. For me, I enjoy the differences and challenges of both (as well as grinning to myself when some dSLR mega-lens toting person looks in bewilderment as I wind on a film, manually focus, use a hand-held lightmeter and change screw-mounted lenses )

Best wishes, Kris.

Having scanned quite a few slides at work and at a friend's, I know how time-consuming it is. I intend to just scan them as and when I need them. Working my way through 8000+ slides is too horrible to contemplate. I'll try scanning them as is to start with. I'd rather not re-mount them as it would mean re-writing all the info on the new mount, re-numbering them and so on. I guess it would be worthwhile for the few I want to print and mount, or perhaps use in a photobook, but for the majority I'll make do. Not sure how to safely get them out of a cardboard Kodak mount!

Best wishes, Kris.

No, you were asking who took the picture of me using the view camera.

K.

John... I remember you saying this before which has been one issue on the back of my mind. Well I have just bought the Minolta second-hand from Gary (thank you!) so I'll have to make it work one way or other. I have been thinking about and looking at scanners for quite some time but the cost put me off until this one came along.

Luckily I use XP (I loathe Vista with a passion) so I should be OK.

Thanks K.

Another nice set of shots. I especially like No. 2 although the exposure could do with increasing a little in PP as the snow is a little too grey. Also, you have one or two dust spots that need cloning out (pot calling the kettle black here!).

Best wishes, Kris.

I see what you mean. A slight crop and a little cloning will get rid of that! Thanks for spotting it, K.

Could I have the Program A manual, please? And if I can the topmost MX leaflet?

Many thanks, Kris.

I'll be using it almost entirely for colour slides. I have two filing cabinet drawers full of slides in archival quality hanging files. The majority I only need a "powerpoint" resolution for lectures. For some, however, I wouldn't mind decent quality images hence the scanner. Thanks for the tips, I'll post some images when the beastie arrives.

Thanks, K.

Nice photo to start with, and improved with some subtle PP. Lovely.

K.

As it is it seems too flat to me, but the scene is lovely. I wonder if a mono conversion might do the trick, or upping contrast and vibrance in PP. Definitely worth playing around with a bit more.

K.